I am not sure anyone on the platform could have helped the guy on the tracks. He was thrown in front of an oncoming subway train. Those things are huge and moving quickly when they enter the station, and they do not stop on a dime.

There happened to be a freelance photographer who sold pictures to the NY Post on the platform. He'd had his camera out. I unless I mistunderstood the coverage on the morning news shows he was using his camera to record some of the argument that went on between the victim and the guy who threw him on the track before the incident happened. He did what freelance photographers generally do when he took the picture, not that I'm buying his excuse that he was trying to use the flash to signal the train operator to stop. It would have been obvious the train could not stop in time. They said on the news that the train driver was so traumatized they had to sedate him.

But publishing it? And on the front page? Yikes. I know it's the NY Post and they'll publish anything. But yikes.

While the photo is disturbing, and I agree the Post is a crappy paper, I don't have a problem with the photographer taking it and documenting what happened. That's what photojournalists do, take pictures to document events for the world to see.

Click to expand...

And there is a world of difference in a photojournalist and anyone with an Iphone or for that matter a snarky tabloid photographer.

There is a good chance that a photojournalist would NOT have released the picture. They understand the difference between wanting to document a story and wanting to make a buck off of some one elses tragedy.

I guess I feel there's a difference between the photo of a random person about to die a horrible death and a story thats of national signifigance like of war or an assassination attempt etc.

Click to expand...

But that is still someone's loved one whether it effects the world or just them.
Maybe part of the problem is that people are desensitized because we do see those types of photos in the media, so when it is a random person, its not a big deal.
(not saying its not a big deal, just saying that is the perception of photos like this when they are published).

And there is a world of difference in a photojournalist and anyone with an Iphone or for that matter a snarky tabloid photographer.

There is a good chance that a photojournalist would NOT have released the picture. They understand the difference between wanting to document a story and wanting to make a buck off of some one elses tragedy.

Photojournalist want their pictures to do more than sell a newspaper.

Click to expand...

Wrong. This guy was a freelance photographer not just someone with an iPhone or a snarky tabloid photographer.

For me, what makes this photo worse than war photos or other tragedies that have already happened is in this case, the outcome could have been different.

Click to expand...

But could it? He was thrown in front of a train just before it entered the station and was too dazed to quickly get up and get to the side of the tracks where someone could reach him. From what I've heard, and it admittedly could be incorrect, it was unlikely anyone could help him without turning this from one death into multiple deaths.

It is unlikely the man taking this photo had any more chance of saving the victim in this photograph than the man who took this one yet I have never once heard anyone say he should have put the camera down and tried to put out the fire instead.

But that is still someone's loved one whether it effects the world or just them.
Maybe part of the problem is that people are desensitized because we do see those types of photos in the media, so when it is a random person, its not a big deal.
(not saying its not a big deal, just saying that is the perception of photos like this when they are published).

I guess I feel there's a difference between the photo of a random person about to die a horrible death and a story thats of national signifigance like of war or an assassination attempt etc.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can name for me the name of the woman that Stanley Forman photographed falling to her death in an apartment fire after the fire escape balcony she was standing on collapsed in Boston in 1975... and explain to me her national significance? Forman, a photographer for the Boston Herald American, was awarded the first of his two Pulitzer Prizes for this equally horrifying photo... 37 years ago.

Perhaps you can name for me the name of the woman that Stanley Forman photographed falling to her death in an apartment fire after the fire escape balcony she was standing on collapsed in Boston in 1975... and explain to me her national significance? Forman, a photographer for the Boston Herald American, was awarded the first of his two Pulitzer Prizes for this equally horrifying photo.

Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't around in '75 nor was I familiar with that photo. I also am not on the Pulitzer committee so I have no voice in what they choose. Was the photo published on the cover of a prominent newspaper?

if so then i would be equally disgusted in it's use on the cover...even with a pulitzer. It isnt the photo, it was how it was used.

But could it? He was thrown in front of a train just before it entered the station and was too dazed to quickly get up and get to the side of the tracks where someone could reach him. From what I've heard, and it admittedly could be incorrect, it was unlikely anyone could help him without turning this from one death into multiple deaths.

It is unlikely the man taking this photo had any more chance of saving the victim in this photograph than the man who took this one yet I have never once heard anyone say he should have put the camera down and tried to put out the fire instead.

Click to expand...

I wasn't there, so I don't know. But I *want* it to be different, kwim?

I have not looked at the photo, but I can imagine what it looks like from descriptions and my mind screams "why doesn't someone help him?!"

Like I said, it's more of a visceral reaction seeing a photo like that, not based on the reality of the situation.

Well, I wasn't around in '75 nor was I familiar with that photo. I also am not on the Pulitzer committee so I have no voice in what they choose. Was the photo published on the cover of a prominent newspaper?

if so then i would be equally disgusted in it's use on the cover...even with a pulitzer. It isnt the photo, it was how it was used.

Click to expand...

From the article I linked (emphasis mine):

This photo, shot by Stanley Forman on July 22, 1975, in Boston, Mass., earned the photographer a Pulitzer Prize. The controversial image filled most of the front page of the Boston Herald American and a hundred other newspapers across America. The two girls were trying to escape a fire in their apartment building when the fire escape collapsed. The 19-year old girl died on impact, but the younger girl survived. The immediate impact of the photo was negative the paper was accused of sensationalism, but the national outrage ignited by the publishing of the photo resulted in the passing of much-needed updated fire escape legislation across the country

Click to expand...

The Forman example is just one that I'm aware... Here's another national news example from 2003... Were you around when this happened and it was featured in newspapers and national news programs? Was the doomed pizza delivery man Brian Wells a national figure?

And there is a world of difference in a photojournalist and anyone with an Iphone or for that matter a snarky tabloid photographer.

There is a good chance that a photojournalist would NOT have released the picture. They understand the difference between wanting to document a story and wanting to make a buck off of some one elses tragedy.

Photojournalist want their pictures to do more than sell a newspaper.

Click to expand...

I would say that these pictures do more than sell newspapers. Photojournalists sell photos to papers all the time. Many times very disturbing (like these) photos.

I wonder if these photos were published by a different paper, with a different headline, if people would have the same reaction. I know we, or most would still find the photos disturbing, but could it be the wording of the Post's headline that makes it more disgusting for some people?

From the article I linked (emphasis mine):The Forman example is just one that I'm aware... Here's another national news example from 2003... Were you around when this happened and it was featured in newspapers and national news programs? Was the doomed pizza delivery man Brian Wells a national figure?

Click to expand...

Sorry. I'm unfamiliar with that photo and the accompanying story. It doesnt negate my feelings on the subway photo or other photos used in a similar manner.